Eduardo De La Torre; Lori Saysourivong, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees,
CashCall, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellants.
and Submitted February 16, 2017 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-03174-MEJ
Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
C. Sturdevant (argued), The Sturdevant Law Firm, San
Francisco, California; Jessica Riggin and Steven M. Tindall,
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, San Francisco,
California; Arthur D. Levy, Law Office of Arthur D. Levy, San
Francisco, California; for
W. Seiling (argued), Donald R. Brown, and Joanna S. McCallum,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles, California,
Becker, Oakland, California, as and for Amicus Curiae Center
for Responsible Lending. Ted Mermin, Berkeley, California, as
and for Amicus Curiae Public Good Law Center.
Michael J. Quirk, Williams Cuker Berezofsky LLC,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Curiae National
Association of Consumer Advocates.
Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit
Judges, and Lynn S. Adelman, [*] District Judge.
CERTYING QUESTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
of Question to California Supreme Court
panel certified the following question to the California
Supreme Court: Can the interest rate on consumer loans of
$2500 or more governed by California Finance Code §
22303, render the loans unconscionable under California
Finance Code § 22302?
central issue in this case is whether the interest rates on
consumer loans of $2500 or more that are governed by
California Finance Code § 22303, which provides no
interest rate limitations on such loans, can be deemed
unconscionable under California Finance Code § 22302 and
thus be the predicate for a private cause of action under the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The
answer to this question could determine the outcome of this
matter and there is no controlling precedent. We therefore
respectfully request that the California Supreme Court
exercise its discretion to decide the certified question
presented below. See Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(a). Absent
certification, we will "predict as best we can what the
California Supreme Court would do in these
circumstances." Pacheco v. United States, 220
F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).
provide the following information in accordance with
California Rule of Court 8.548(b)(1).
The title and numbers of this case are:
No. 14-17571, No. 15-15042
EDUARDO DE LA TORRE; LORI SAYSOURIVONG, Plaintiffs and